test_email_forward_rules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the critical safety property ('dry run', 'without actually forwarding them'), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like (which rules matched, format) even though it has an output schema that could have been referenced, nor edge cases like limits on hours_back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: the core purpose in one line, the safety clarification, and the usage hint. Zero wasted words, every sentence contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple dry-run tool with one documented parameter and an output schema. The description explains the safety-critical dry-run behavior and the testing use case, which is sufficient. It could mention it complements run_email_forward_now, but for a tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (hours_back), so the schema fully documents it. The description says 'recent emails' and 'Checks which emails would be forwarded', which loosely implies the hours_back scope but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema's default of 24. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (test), resource (email forward rules), and scope ('against recent emails', 'dry run'). It distinguishes from siblings like run_email_forward_now (which actually performs the forwarding) and get_email_forward_rules (which lists rules). However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says it's 'Useful for testing rules before enabling them', providing clear context for when to use. It implies the alternative is running the rules for real, but doesn't explicitly name run_email_forward_now as the contrasting tool. No explicit when-not or alternatives are named, so it doesn't reach 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.